What’s Wrong with the World

Tony, out of curiosity: Is there an official Catholic position concerning the textual issues on this passage? These are what are known as "lower critical" concerns as opposed to the (silly) "higher critical" objections. Already in Augustine's time it was known that many copies of John didn't contain the incident of the woman taken in adultery at all. Augustine commented that perhaps earlier scribes had *taken out* the passage because they feared that it would seem that Jesus was being easy-going on adultery!

It appears to be extremely ancient in origin but perhaps not original to the Gospel of John or at least not original *in that location*. Some manuscripts even put the passage in (of all things) the Gospel of Luke!

One theory that I think has a lot to be said for it is that this was a story that was actually told by the Apostle John in his lifetime and written down and hence was known to be authentic in its origin, but that John did not initially put into his Gospel. It may then have been included in his Gospel after his death because it was known that it came from him.

Anyway, I was curious as to whether there was an official Catholic "line" on the textual question.

It is mildly ironic that in all probability those somewhat "on the left" who want to use the passage in the silly ways you are rightly arguing against here--e.g., to oppose all capital punishment--would normally not be taking what one might call an "ultraconservative" line on whether or not a legitimately textually disputed passage should be considered canonical! But in this case they think the passage is useful for their agenda and hence ignore considerations that even strong biblical conservative scholars think relevant to whether the passage was part of the gospel originally.

Lydia, I read about this controversy in researching for this. As far as I know, there is no official Catholic stance about the controversy as such, but the Latin Vulgate has this section of John 8. The Vulgate is not "the official" Bible, it is merely the "authorized" Latin translation of the Bible for public uses. It has a "preferred" status in some contexts, but it does not, for example, displace the untranslated original texts.

I suspect, (rather than know), that in virtue of the Vulgate having the text, and so many of the Fathers commenting on it and approving it, seems at least comparable to the attestation by which the canonical books were approved and the non-canonical books were set aside. I haven't studied up on whether the Fathers disputed separate sections of various books as they did on the canonical books as a whole.

I think you are right that leftiberals would generally seek to include this incident as part of John. I suppose that we should give a hesitant denial of it to push them into a firm and definitive stance in favor of the passage being authentically part of John, and then pull the rug out from underneath them: OK, fine, you're right, this incident belongs in John. But it doesn't in the least mean what you think it means.

I don't have any strong opinion on the dispute itself. I have to go completely on argument from authority as to the basic claim itself, that none of the earliest texts have the incident, I have no way to assess that claim. If it is a valid claim, the thinking that the passage was added out of John's verbal record is reasonable. But I would still feel uncomfortable about it, in that for the Bible as a whole we say that God inspired the individual authors who wrote it: in what sense did He inspire the persons (assuming a group) who agreed to add to ch. 8? It's a little odd.

Read John 7-8 with the Pericope de Adultera included. Then read it again with the Pericope taken out. In the latter reading, you end up with a meeting of Jesus' enemies, in which Jesus is clearly not present, (it begins at 7:45) in which it has just been said of Him "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet", when all of a sudden "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12 does not naturally follow John 7:52 without something in between. If the Pericope de Adultera was not there originally, then it has been put in place of something else that was removed. What was that something else?

That is the internal argument for the Pericope's having been part of the original text. The textual evidence here, at first glance appears to be age versus majority. Is the original reading most likely to be that found in the majority of the manuscripts we possess? If so the Pericope is authentic. Is the original reading most likely to be that found in the oldest manuscripts we possess? If so, the Pericope may not be genuine after all. Zane Hodges penned the classic articulation of the majority principle - essentially boiling down to the fact that is extremely unlikely that all these latter manuscripts were all copied from the same erroneous earlier manuscript and so actually attest to a large number of earlier manuscripts with the same reading that are no longer extent. However, it is not a simple case of age versus majority. In this case, the dispute over the authenticity of the passage was known in ancient times and commented on, with St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and St. Jerome arguing for its authenticity. St. Jerome included it in his Latin translation, and St. Augustine in his book on Adulterous Marriages, maintained that it had been removed from some manuscripts by men of "little faith" for fear that their wives might be encouraged to cheat because of it. These are Latin Fathers, those who argue against the Pericope say, and no Greek Father refers to the passage for the first millennium of the church. As it happens this is not the case - there are numerous allusions, albeit not as plain as those in Augustine and Jerome - but Dean John William Burgon further argued against this point with the fact that the Greek Fathers may not have said much about the passage, but they set if for the Gospel Lesson on St. Pelagia's Day (October 8th). At any rate, the passage's inclusion in the Old Latin translation, the otherwise low quality of certain of the oldest manuscripts (a point Burgon dwelt upon at great length), the fact that some of these manuscripts which supposedly leave the passage out cannot be cited as authorities for or against the passage because the leaf or two where it would have appeared is missing entirely, and others that omit the passage leave a space for it thus testifying that the passage was known to the scribe and therefore at least as old as the manuscript in question, are all arguments that take away from the weight attached to the age of the minority of manuscripts that exclude the passage.

That is my brief argument for retaining this passage in the place in the Sacred Text received and passed down by the church. I agree, of course, with your arguments against those who would use the text as an argument against capital punishment.

Gerry, what a fantastic summary of the debate! Thank you for clarifying the state of the question so well. (And boy, am I glad I didn't have to go do all that work, too.) It is good to have additional ammunition for accepting the gospels as we have them.

Perhaps my largest concern about the reading I tendered above is that has John necessarily relying on the reader to know Deuteronomy well enough to link up the passages that warn the witnesses and that require punishment of both adulterers up with the fact that the Pharisees were not following the law. Unlike Matthew (probably), John was not specifically writing to Jews, so maybe he would not be willing to simply assume sufficient familiarity with Deuteronomy? While those passages are not particularly obscure, neither are they the ones everyone will simply recall as needed.

Tony, I think even without a thorough knowledge of Deuteronomy, the reader of John could be expected to recognize that what was going on here was not quite kosher. The episode that immediately precedes the periscope demonstrates that the scribes and Pharisees were already out to "get" Jesus and, if one did not from this alone draw the conclusion that they were not acting in bona fide with regards to this woman, John pretty much spells it out for us in verse six.

In my previous comment I mentioned St. Jerome as an ancient authority for the authenticity of the Pericope. I should have mentioned that the evidence from him is stronger than just his inclusion of the passage in the Vulgate. In his treatise against the Pelagian heresy he writes "In Evangelio secundum Johnnem in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud Dominum" (In the Gospel according to John, in many codices both Greek and Latin, is found the story about the adulterous woman, who was accused before the Lord). Contro Pelagio, II. 17. 4. In context, in which he is using the passage authoritatively, this clearly indicates that he finds the textual support for the Pericope conclusive.

Hi Gerry,
Not sure I see (yet) the merit in your internal argument for the pericope's being original. You say 8:12 doesn't naturally follow 7:52 without something between. But it's not clear to me that 8:12 follows the pericope (ending at 8:11) with any more naturalness. In 8:9-11, Jesus is alone with the woman. So in 8:12, suddenly Pharisees are back? There's apparently at least a bit of a narrative gap between verse 11 and 12. But we can say the same thing if we cut the pericope and take 8:12 to follow 7:52: there's a bit of a narrative gap between the meeting in 7:45-52 and Jesus' remarks to the Pharisees in 8:12. And the gap doesn't strike me as that large. Even if Jesus was not right there with the Pharisees in 7:45-52, we get the impression from 7:32-33 that he was nearby. I'm also tempted by the thought that Jesus' remark in 8:12 *was* a response to the Pharisees' remarks in 7:52. Isaiah 9:1 says God will honor Galilee, and verse 2 talks of those walking in darkness seeing a great light.

>> ‘When you read what people say about the woman caught in adultery, John 8:1-11, you get the following notions as being “what the Gospel says”: (1) only those who have never sinned are allowed to judge, and since everybody sins, there should be no judgment; (2) Jesus is against capital punishment, ever; (3) mercy must always prevail instead of justice; and (4) the old Law is obliterated because it was not just, now we have the “law of love”. (line feed removed) These are wrong. They are completely wrong. …’

“… Tread carefully, for the life on the line here may be your own.”

Is the last sentence not related pretty closely to #1? If so, either what people say isn’t completely wrong, or the traditional analysis is missing something. The latter in my judgment.

Look, I think in the the most general sense the context is that Jesus was diffusing a lynch mob. A very big deal. People dealing mostly with first world problems naturally overlook this. Think you could do it? So I suppose everything he did in the passage ought to be interpreted within that context. Lynch mobs operate by rules of their own, and most definitely in the moment. Their proximate cause isn’t where the action or lesson truly is. I suppose the lesson has to do with human nature and how it plays out in social reality in this fallen world. Jesus saved the life of a scapegoat, and it was recorded in history. He was a student of human nature–God’s highest creation–and his deep understanding of human nature was demonstrated in this passage. There’s a lesson there. Get that wrong, and not a lot else will really matter.

Perhaps my largest concern about the reading I tendered above is that has John necessarily relying on the reader to know Deuteronomy well enough to link up the passages that warn the witnesses and that require punishment of both adulterers up with the fact that the Pharisees were not following the law. Unlike Matthew (probably), John was not specifically writing to Jews, so maybe he would not be willing to simply assume sufficient familiarity with Deuteronomy?

I don't think we need to worry about that, because the scene is powerful and worth knowing about even if one doesn't follow all those nuances. Jesus and the accusers would have both known the law, and that's what matters for the historicity of the passage. As for John's reason for telling it, if we assume that he did recount is (e.g., in his original gospel) he needn't have been worrying too much about a highly specific audience and what they would or would not understand. Maybe he just thought it was a wonderful incident and recounted it accurately, and that's all there is to it.

One thing I think we can say, and that is that the style of the story is not like that of Matthew. But Matthew is the one Gospel that we know was targeted at a specifically Jewish audience.

Is the last sentence not related pretty closely to #1? If so, either what people say isn’t completely wrong, or the traditional analysis is missing something. The latter in my judgment.

Mark, I am not following your logic. I am afraid you will have to spell it out for me one point at a time.

Theory (1) says that the gospel passage means "don't judge". My reading is that the passage means "when it is your duty to judge, then judge with righteousness." I am not seeing how those are compatible.

I agree that Jesus was defusing a 'mob' of sorts, but I don't think it was a lynch mob: first, John explicitly says they were out to trap Jesus, not to lynch the woman, and they weren't using the woman as a scapegoat but as bait. Second, not the whole crowd was involved - there were lots of people there before the scribes and Pharisees brought the woman, and the scribes were counting on that crowd NOT wanting Jesus to condemn the woman. Third, the Roman law did not allow them to put people to death on their own, and there is no way the scribes and Pharisees themselves were going to test the Roman rulers on the issue over a mere adulteress. Fourth, while the focus of the story is on Jesus deconstructing the mob, the account of that defusing is not explainable except in terms of how Jesus uses the Law to make them back down. Certainly Jesus has great insight into human nature, but he doesn't SHOW any of that except by crafting a successful ploy to disrupt the plan of the Pharisees, and this is (again) only explainable in terms of his using the Law on them.

But it's not clear to me that 8:12 follows the pericope (ending at 8:11) with any more naturalness. In 8:9-11, Jesus is alone with the woman. So in 8:12, suddenly Pharisees are back? There's apparently at least a bit of a narrative gap between verse 11 and 12.

Daniel, there does seem to be a sort of possible discontinuity between 8:11 and 8:12, because the scribes and Pharisees who brought the woman all went away one by one, and then in verse 13 the Pharisees challenged Jesus (in a new way).

But the seeming oddity there is not impossible to explain. It could be, for example, that a number of Pharisees were in the crowd before the woman was brought to Jesus, and a distinct group of Pharisees brought the woman - and left one by one. That would leave the first Pharisees still there.

There are also marks of continuity between the pericope and the following verses: the Pharisees in v. 13 are challenging hum based on who is an appropriate witness to his claim, and both 7:50 and (my reading of) 8:7 are ALSO about the Law regarding witnesses. In the pericope Jesus refuses to act as judge, and (in my reading) does so correctly and uses the fact that the Pharisees are acting contrary to the Law on this point. In verses 8:15-16, Jesus again refuses to claim the mantle of judge here and now.

There is also a contextual oddity in having verse 8:12 start with "When Jesus spoke again to the people, after 7:40 to 7:52 being other speaking about Jesus without him being directly present. Sure, Jesus could have been nearby, but the oddity is that while the temple guards went back to the priests and the Pharisees who then had a discussion, Jesus would not have been waiting for the upshot of that discussion. He would have gone right on speaking to the crowd. So his "next" speech to the people (i.e. 8:12) would have not been in the context of what the priests and Pharisees had discussed in 7:45-52, but in connection with his speech at 7:37. I think it makes more sense if the temple guards reporting back denotes the end of that day and its confrontation, with the confrontation picking up again the next day on slightly different (but still related) terms.

Superb exegesis, Tony. You have illuminated many things for me. This series of commentaries on famous Scripture passages is awesome. I hope you keep it up.

It is really doubtful to be original, though maybe a oral tradition inserted into the Gospel of John (that might have belonged in Luke). Metzger summaraizes the evidence as follows:

7:53–8:11 Pericope of the Adulteress

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as 𝔓66, א B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc, and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the Old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, *, ). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.
When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John’s narrative least if it were inserted after 7:52 (D E (F) G H K M U Γ Π 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7:36 (ms. 225) or after 7:44 (several Georgian mss) or after 21:25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Lk 21:38 (f ). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses that contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials.
Sometimes it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the Fourth Gospel because Jesus’ words at the close were liable to be understood in a sense too indulgent to adultery. But, apart from the absence of any instance elsewhere of scribal excision of an extensive passage because of moral prudence, this theory fails “to explain why the three preliminary verses (vii 53; viii 1–2), so important as apparently descriptive of the time and place at which all the discourses of c. viii were spoken, should have been omitted with the rest” (Hort, “Notes on Select Readings,” pp. 86 f.).
Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn 7:52.
Inasmuch as the passage is absent from the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make a decision among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the level of certainty ({A}) is within the framework of the initial decision relating to the passage as a whole.

Source:

Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 187–189.

Jonathan, thank you for this further information. I knew there was a lot of evidence that seems to exclude the pericope from John's original text, though I didn't know how much.

When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12 ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.

Meh. Almost all of the arguments I have seen in the past based on style and vocabulary are far from certain, usually comprising evidence that even in the aggregate arises to no better than "more likely than not". I have never seen one that could stand as "certain". Doesn't mean it is impossible, but I would not accept such a claim off the cuff. As to the thesis that it "interrupts" the sequence of 7:52, not only is THAT not conclusive, it isn't any better than 50-50, as far as I can tell: there is a way of reading it as interruptive EITHER WAY, and a way of reading it as more connected with the pericope. And any New Testament scholar who writes in his book that it is "conclusive", I would for that reason alone probably put on my "be cautious, and take with a grain of salt" shelf.

On the other hand, I agree that the argument from St. Augustine attributing the excision due to concerns about laxness seems kind of lame.

But I don't feel very strongly about the basic issue one way or another. Do you agree with the idea that all of the Latin Fathers considered the pericope authentic to (at least) the Apostles' oral tradition and reliable? This, to me, is the more critical question.

Of course, if the passage were neither in John's original text, nor an addition from an apostolic oral tradition, but something created and inserted later, then it wouldn't in any authoritative sense stand in criticism of judgment, punishment, or the death penalty, would it?

By the way, for the sake of clarity: My reading of the passage given above, specifically in terms of what Jesus wrote, is my own take and not "what the Fathers said". As far as I can tell, the Fathers said many different things about it, they were not in full agreement - in posing a variety of offerings, they left it open to debate. My explanation is compatible with everything ELSE that the Fathers said about the passage, as far as I can see, and ties up loose ends better than any other explanation I have seen so far. But I don't hold it forth as "certain" at all, only that it is reasonable. The rest of my exegesis effectively just borrows from the Fathers and Doctors, or simply folds what they said here and elsewhere in with the idea that Jesus wrote specific parts of the Law.

Tony, going point by point when there are very different assumptions isn't a good way to go. I'll just simply point out a few things more things that might help.

I could have misunderstood but it seemed to me you were emphasizing that a major point of the passage if not the major point was "Tread carefully, for the life on the line here may be your own." On that understanding I was just pointing out the similarity between that view and "(1) only those who have never sinned are allowed to judge, and since everybody sins, there should be no judgment", which I thought you wanted to debunk. Whereas I think it's a mistake to see the passage being about judgment in any central way. And of course, there's no shortage of passages giving that message clearly and directly as to leave no doubt, to say nothing of common sense and the application of the Law itself.

I don't see how anything John said would or could imply that it wasn't a lynch mob. The Jewish cultural context means there would be at least the Jewish Law in the mix. Sure, we can imagine purely spontaneous lynch mobs where no authorities or standards are referenced whatever. A supposed witness pointing out someone and a crowd rushing to kill or at least brutalize and humiliate the victim with no thought of any outside standard of judgment other than the collective frenzy of a spontaneous mob. On that fairly contrived basis it was no lynch mob. I'm not going to take the time right now to list the essential aspects of lynch mobs, but if you think about what they might be I think this one fits any reasonable definition.

Many of the seeming perplexities as you pointed out essentially play the hypocrisy card: "Ha! Where was the man she committed adultery with?" as if it was a court of law or anything less than a hoped for fast moving drama set in motion by the Pharisees. Well since when did a lynch mob ever require any witness to be present? Has a lynch mob ever said, "Wait a minute boys, we can't string up this guy because our witness seems not to have followed us out to the hangin' tree." I've never seen that one either. One person just says "We're doing this for Billy-Bob ... or something!" and they pull the rope. That the judgment be accurate in any way simply isn't essential to the function of lynch mobs. It isn't about justice or accuracy. Vigilante justice might well be about that; punishing what the authorities won't and often rightly should. But a lynch mob just needs a victim to be selected and sacrificed. There usually is a peace that settles over the society when such things are done, at the expense of the victim. There surely must be few if any other examples of lynch mobs dispersed without force. One could assert that as evidence that it wasn't a lynch mob, or one could say Jesus' masterful understanding of human nature and society was on display as he did what few if any others has done.

Nothing Jesus did or said in the passage meant public standards shouldn't be applied to punish her after the crowd dispersed. He didn't say to anyone "go and judge judge or judge this woman no more" as he could have. He didn't imply those same people or others couldn't have her punished after this event if there were any applicable standards covering what she did. But Jesus, the accusers, and anyone knew full well after the moment was gone it was very likely there'd be no interest in doing that. They wanted to take out all their frustrations on her, and once the moment passed she couldn't be used again the way she would have been in that moment. That's why I think it's a mistake to emphasize what the passage says about judgment because I'm not sure what it actually does say about that when taking into account the context.

If the social characteristics of the mob is as I see it things look different. I think the Pharisees did assume he'd not agree with them. He'd faced them down with subtle wisdom at least a few times before. But they were presenting Jesus with the far more difficult issue of either getting swept up in their violent passions (not gonna happen), or standing aside as not his problem (not going to happen), or pushed aside by the mob if he couldn't dissuade them from stoning her in any case, which they could have done no matter his judgment in legal terms. If they'd have rushed to stone her while he was there–no matter what he did or said–it would have been a big win for them. He defended her because it was the right thing to do of course, but from the side of the Pharisees it was a matter of performance. He didn't just have to fight the battle, he had to win it. A very tall order. It was the ultimate intimidation, and he'd be shamed in the eyes of the public as the powerless savior who couldn't defend others. (Quite different from willingly laying down his own life as he was to do.)

Jesus wasn't merely pointing out that the accusers weren't sinless and were hypocrites, he deconstructed the mob to their astonishment–the one thing they didn't imagine he could do. They were hoping to overwhelm the type of wisdom he'd used against them in the past, so they raised the ante yet again. However, he just displayed to them that only pure force would work against him, or at least him not arguing on his own behalf.

Stated crudely, the Pharisees tried to overwhelm whatever arguments and reasoning experience told them Jesus might be able to apply to the case by inciting a mob to render it irrelevant in public terms. Jesus responded by deconstructing the mob itself. So brilliant.

I don't see in the passage that we can necessarily infer anything about his judgment on possible future consequences of her actions if there might be any, right or wrong. I don't think we can pile on extra baggage by reading into it so many others things, especially ones dealt with more directly and clearly in other passages.

Mark, I do think that your analysis fails to take into account both the religious and the nationalistic self-importance of those bringing the woman to Jesus.

Of course they were pretending to be acting according the Law of Moses. The Jewish leaders always chafed under the fact that they weren't allowed to put people to death, despite the fact that the Mosaic theocratic law specifically calls upon the people to put various classes of sinners to death. We see their chafing at it repeatedly, their idea that it is *lawful* (in God's eyes) for them to enact the death penalty and that it's just those pesky Romans preventing it. This even comes up in the case of Jesus himself. They hold a kangaroo trial for him by their own law and then drag him off to Pilate and faux-piously claim that they need Pilate to sentence him to crucifixion because "by our law he ought to die," but darn it, they "can't" actually kill him. One sees it even in the extremely spontaneous and passionate stoning of Stephen. He's considered guilty of blasphemy. One sees it in the later death of James the kinsman of Jesus, who was (almost certainly not coincidentally) bludgeoned to death when the region was in between two different Roman procurators.

Here we should imagine, multiplied many times over in passion, the bat-craziest theonomist theocrat you have ever met--some dude who believes that it's "God's law" that he be able to stone his wife to death with a few of his buddies if she cheats on him, or that he should be able (as in the OT) to subject her to trial by ordeal if it's overseen by his local pastor.

Or imagine Muslims who try to enforce sharia law within their own regions of a city, using sharia "courts."

Yes, in a sense those carrying out penalties in such cases may be mobs, but they are *extremely* self-righteous mobs and sometimes even mobs that play out their own religious concepts by having their own rules, etc., that they follow or say that they follow.

In this case, it actually does become relevant if their own ostensible rules have been written down somewhere (such as in the Torah) and they *aren't* really following them, while simultaneously trying to entrap Jesus by challenging him to "follow the Law."

>> Mark, I do think that your analysis fails to take into account both the religious and the nationalistic self-importance of those bringing the woman to Jesus.

Not at all. I don't see how anything I've said contradicts anything you've said. I've added additional context.

>> Yes, in a sense those carrying out penalties in such cases may be mobs, but they are *extremely* self-righteous mobs and sometimes even mobs that play out their own religious concepts by having their own rules, etc., that they follow or say that they follow.

Of course they're extremely self-righteous and playing out religious concepts. I thought I was pretty clear in asserting that indeed they were.

>> In this case, it actually does become relevant if their own ostensible rules have been written down somewhere (such as in the Torah) and they *aren't* really following them, while simultaneously trying to entrap Jesus by challenging him to "follow the Law."

How exactly does recognizing an additional contextual element contradict anything you've said, none of which I've disputed or intend to? The usual suspects this time added inciting a mob as *an additional measure* to try to win an argument and force an execution to undermine Jesus' public credibility. Surely that is undeniable.

I can't see a force to your argument since I can't see you've stated explicitly where the contradiction lies between the single additional element I've added and what you've said. The passage demonstrates the superiority of Jesus to his adversaries. He thwarted them on every level, and my additional contextual element doesn't negate yours in any way I can see.

No, the problem comes, as you know, in how we see it's possible ******application*******. Does it have to do with making personal judgments? Of course the application can't be that only the sinless can judge. We all know that. But my point is that in terms of possible application, is the passage about judging at all? It seems to me it's about executing judgment. We've no right to try to execute public justice by inciting irrational responses to harm people. In the context of stoning or this type of "justice", the fact is that if one person throws a stone, for any reason, everyone throws their stone. Anyone that doesn't think that's the way it works is naive. That is why Jesus honed in on the personal basis for acting as executor of public judgment. There was none. The question isn't "Who are you to judge?" it is "Who are you to act as if executor of some public tribunal unless you happen to be one."

In light of what I think is the full context, it seems to me the range of applications we can draw from it should have to do with the proper means executing judgment. Repudiating the way people pile on after others and righteously enjoying seeing a victim get what they suppose he has coming to him.

There is defintely more textual evidence for the pericope de adultera than the Comma Johanneum.

So again, for me the most amazing aspect aspect of the story is whether Jesus can pull off the saving of the woman from the mob. Simply because it seems to me by far the hardest task.

As I've said, in this instance Jesus can win all the arguments and still lose, and that is what the Pharisees were hoping for. That was what was new in this story, what was added in the struggle over all the other traps they'd tried and failed. I just think Jesus' task was harder than we seem to think now, as if it were some debate as usual with the Pharisees that they were bound to respect. I think they went in not thinking surely this was the time they could cast what would no doubt again be brilliant reasoning aside, but were forced to respect it on a different and unexpected level.

The Pharisees demonstrated a shrewd grasp of human nature and social reality in leveraging the mob against Jesus, but Jesus showed himself to have a far greater understanding of it and schooled them yet again, thus saving the woman an unjust and cruel fate. And yes, allowing us to make the familiar religious and legal points we all know and love. :)

Mark, you seem to have done a very interesting job of analyzing the situation, except for a couple of smalls facets. One: you have failed to suggest even an iota of HOW it is that Jesus pulls off the save. So far as I can see, nothing you said indicates how it is that Jesus' actions foreclose the mob murder. Nothing you said explains the mob dissolving:

So again, for me the most amazing aspect aspect of the story is whether Jesus can pull off the saving of the woman from the mob. Simply because it seems to me by far the hardest task.

He didn't just have to fight the battle, he had to win it. A very tall order. It was the ultimate intimidation, and he'd be shamed in the eyes of the public as the powerless savior who couldn't defend others.

Jesus wasn't merely pointing out that the accusers weren't sinless and were hypocrites, he deconstructed the mob to their astonishment–the one thing they didn't imagine he could do. They were hoping to overwhelm the type of wisdom he'd used against them in the past, so they raised the ante yet again.

Stated crudely, the Pharisees tried to overwhelm whatever arguments and reasoning experience told them Jesus might be able to apply to the case by inciting a mob to render it irrelevant in public terms. Jesus responded by deconstructing the mob itself. So brilliant.

As far as I can see, all you have done is hand-waving around the issue. Did he use magic? Miracle? What?

Second, you failed to answer Lydia's point at all. Indeed, I gather you didn't see it:

I can't see a force to your argument since I can't see you've stated explicitly where the contradiction lies between the single additional element I've added and what you've said.

The contradiction, if I may it out in black and white, is that the Pharisees had no intention of initiating the throwing of stones without Jesus saying that she must be stoned, (which they did not expect) as they weren't going to risk the Romans coming in and chopping them all to bits and asking questions later. Whereas you seem to say that they had every intention of starting the throwing of stones regardless of what Jesus did.

As a Catholic, I conform myself to the interpretation of the Fathers when they are in agreement. They are in agreement that the trap they were setting Jesus was in the form of pincers between Jesus repudiating the law by saying she must not be stoned, or Jesus repudiating his own character as gentle and compassionate, (with a side order of being denounced to the Romans as inciting a stoning party). I don't see how your interpretation can be made to fit with that, because NONE of those actually requires a stoning to occur, and the one they EXPECTED was that Jesus would repudiate the Law to save her, which would have been sufficient for their purposes.

There is defintely more textual evidence for the pericope de adultera than the Comma Johanneum.

Jonathan, does the Comma play into this issue of the pericope at all?

BTW, the Jewish chafing under the rule of the Romans that Tony and Lydia both mentioned is one of the things I explicitly had in mind when I said "They wanted to take out all their frustrations on her". Ostensibly lynching is about justice, whereas in fact it's about a gaining a cathartic release of pent up public frustration. Any victim will do. If you can't defeat the Romans, at least you could stone a random victim to death in a righteous frenzy while claiming plausible deniability or at least assuming some form of justice nullification will occur since they aren't very well able to deal with mobs of people. The authorities and everyone else just shrugs, as everyone including the poor victim knows they must. It's just another aspect of the story that gets overlooked now in as we tend to only emphasize overt religious and legal significance of events in the Bible. A grasp of human nature and our social nature are lost in the process. Jesus was acting in his human capacity, and he had built up by then a rich source of deep observation of human nature–God's highest creation–that he drew on to save the woman. I take it we could do likewise if we set our minds to imitate him in all possible respects.

>> The contradiction, if I may it out in black and white, is that the Pharisees had no intention of initiating the throwing of stones without Jesus saying that she must be stoned, (which they did not expect) as they weren't going to risk the Romans coming in and chopping them all to bits and asking questions later. Whereas you seem to say that they had every intention of starting the throwing of stones regardless of what Jesus did.

Well Tony, maybe my account is wrong. On the other hand, if Jesus didn't need to do anything to save her as you say–if the Pharisees had no intention of lifting a finger to hurt her–why did he do what he did? Why write in the dirt and ask them the questions he did? And why did they put down the stones and walk away *one by one*? If what you say is true that's puzzling behavior from both sides. Why not just stare at them as if to say "You fools, you know very well you're not going to stone her so just let her go like you know you're going to."

On your account that explains everything, and mine nothing, why did he do what he did? To provide theological material for Sunday schools texts?

The authorities and everyone else just shrugs,

We have rejected this. Lydia already pointed out that the Jews went through a HUGE effort to enlist the Romans' consent to Jesus' murder, because they were unwilling to risk the Romans' wrath. They clearly considered it a real risk, and by no means assumed that "everyone just shrugs".

since they aren't very well able to deal with mobs of people.

The Romans were perfectly willing to kill mobs of people when they felt it useful.

Why not just stare at them as if to say "You fools, you know very well you're not going to stone her so just let her go like you know you're going to."

Have you forgotten the standard bully's reverse taunt trick: "Hah! You're just afraid to answer the question, aren't you!" In any event, they could have claimed that they were going to take her off to the Romans if Jesus agreed with Moses that she must be killed.

On your account that explains everything, and mine nothing, why did he do what he did? To provide theological material for Sunday schools texts?

I don't know why you demean theological lessons: the gospels repeatedly (especially John) say that Christ did things to teach us: Jesus called out "who touched me" not for his education, but for everyone else's. Jesus asked X, Y, and Z, not for his discovery, but for ours.

None of the events in the gospels happen except by Jesus willing to permit them to happen: if he didn't want the incident to occur, it wouldn't have occurred. He let it happen for a reason, or (much more likely) for many, many reasons, including the salvation of the woman, the strengthening of the faith of the apostles, the conversion of many of the crowd of onlookers, and even the racheting up of irritation of the chief priests. And maybe the repentance of one or two Pharisees.

But as for the SPECIFIC reason for his overcoming the challenge, I have given it: he showed how they were violating the law and COULD be subject to penalties, and (as an implicit threat) showed how he could involve the crowd of onlookers by accusing the Pharisees of not following the law. Their loss of reputation would have been intense.

The Romans wielded authority as a blunt instrument as all governments do. If they had some magic powers to hold mobs accountable for their actions I'd love to know how that worked. Formally the Jews couldn't put someone to death, but if a mob stoned someone all the Romans could do would be to round up some "usual suspects" and punish them. And who might that be? Not likely the perpetrators.

How can you be sure that the Pharisees wouldn't stone someone for fear of the Romans "coming in and chopping them all to bits and asking questions later"? How confident can we be that the Sanhedrin who stoned Stephen were chopped to bits by the Romans? Yeah, not very for the same reasons I've already given.

The Romans wielded authority as a blunt instrument as all governments do. If they had some magic powers to hold mobs accountable for their actions I'd love to know how that worked. Formally the Jews couldn't put someone to death, but if a mob stoned someone all the Romans could do would be to round up some "usual suspects" and punish them. And who might that be? Not likely the perpetrators.

You have ignored the evidence twice presented: the chief priests did not kill Jesus by mob, they went through the Romans. They apparently respected the risk. It's right in the gospels.

Metzger's "overwhelming" evidence for the "non-Johannine" origin of the Pericope is not nearly as impressive as he presents it as being. He starts off with a list of manuscripts that omit the pericope. While it is not comprehensive - only about a tenth of the codices that could have been included in such a list are named - the list of manuscripts that include the passage is much, much, larger. Ironically, L and Δ are among those he does name, despite the fact that these manuscripts omit the Pericope in such a way as to testify to its being older than themselves - they leave a blank between John 7:52 to 8:12. Moreover, his description of this list as "early and diverse is misleading". The first three he names are really the only ones on that list early enough for it to be reasonable to weigh their age against the weight of the numbers of the manuscripts that include the pericope. Those three are not diverse at all. They all come from the same area in Egypt, the same roughly 150-200 year time period, and are well known for agreeing with each other in places, like this one, from most other manuscripts. This is why their readings are called the "Alexandrian text type." Furthermore, "the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts" are all Egyptian translations, very much suggesting that this text type represents, not something that is more likely to be closer to the autographs because of its age, but a regional variation. Note that the versions that most often agree with the Alexandrian text are from areas, like Syria, in close proximity to Egypt. Also note that none of these translations are as old as the Old Latin, and while it is true that some Old Latin manuscripts - Metzger's "several" is as misleading as a textual footnote in the NIV - omit the Pericope, the majority include it.

>> I don't know why you demean theological lessons

Well if the theological lessons derived from an event aren't secondary as opposed to primary, Jesus would be treating people as objects. That's the idea I'm demeaning. You should too.

>> You have ignored the evidence twice presented: the chief priests did not kill Jesus by mob, they went through the Romans. They apparently respected the risk. It's right in the gospels.

Oh please. I'm not quite that stupid. I point out that you've ignored the obvious fact that we have biblical testimony–even if one doesn't allow for common sense–to tell us Jewish society under Roman rule wasn't uniquely resistant to mob violence like no other society that's ever been before or since, undermining your assertion that the Pharisees could only have been making baseless threats so great was their fear or respect for the Romans. Nonsense. The Romans maintained an empire with an unbelievably small number of troops to enforce the rule of law directly. They worked with local authorities and corruption of the sort that is taking a blind eye for a great number of infractions by the powerful members of society–Jewish in this case–was rampant. You don't even have a clear response to this.

>> As a Catholic, I conform myself to the interpretation of the Fathers when they are in agreement. They are in agreement that the trap they were setting Jesus was in the form of pincers between Jesus repudiating the law by saying she must not be stoned, or Jesus repudiating his own character as gentle and compassionate, (with a side order of being denounced to the Romans as inciting a stoning party). I don't see how your interpretation can be made to fit with that, because NONE of those actually requires a stoning to occur, and the one they EXPECTED was that Jesus would repudiate the Law to save her, which would have been sufficient for their purposes.

Is it the interpretation of the Fathers that the threat of stoning was empty? Oh I don't think so. Look, the question is analogically the same as the one about whether Jesus could have sinned. If he couldn't sin was the temptation real, etc. A proper answer has to do with understanding of the incarnation and Jesus' divine and human nature. The point is that the Pharisees didn't think it was an empty threat for the reasons I've given, and Jesus didn't treat it as one because he was acting by and in his human capacities as any other man must do. He couldn't allow it as a man, and he had the ability to stop it as a man. From the divine perspective much of what he did makes no sense, which is what is wrong with not considering his human nature, and ours.

The mistake of your main–probably only–assertion that my extremely modest thesis that adds a contextual detail that doesn't contradict any of the others you've given can't be true seems clear enough. You say the Pharisees "had no intention" of stoning the woman. An empty threat. Whereas you say my view that the threat to stone her was credible and possible from their perspective, and the minds of the woman and spectators too of course. In other words, you'd probably admit that everyone thought the stoning could happen but God. And I'd say yeah and if Jesus weren't the man he was, then it surely would have happened. Both are entirely consistent still because of Jesus the God-man.

Take a few assumptions and a divine perspective, and yeah, it's impossible. Hey, some people persuaded of the truth of Calvinistic or compatibilist assumptions think anything that didn't happen couldn't have happened. So you can eliminate anything you want quite easily enough Tony. Not that challenging really. The only problem is explaining why the extraneous aspects on a divine view of the story exist in such exquisite detail. A lot of the story doesn't make sense on the purely divine perspective of the God-man Jesus or any other divine being. So why is it there and what are we supposed to do with it, or our own common or sense? Because we're human, of course. And we're to understand human nature to the extent that we can, else wise we can't treat other humans as we're supposed to.

It's not that hard to understand really, but I'm so glad we had this chat.

One last thing. It seems to me when you said I "ignored the evidence twice presented ... It's right in the gospels" you're implying that if the Pharisees thought it possible that the woman could have been killed by a mob then it means the Pharisees shouldn't have tried to use any other method to kill Jesus, or would at least be stupid for trying it any other way. For one, they didn't win that round so I don't know why'd think another go round with Jesus–whom they'd learned to fear long since–would have been different. Might better try another way. For another, it would be far better to repudiate and humiliate Jesus like only the state could just in case any others claiming to be Messiah might come along. They love such teachable moments. Lastly, it wouldn't have fulfilled the Father's will for him to die that way as we all know.

You say the Pharisees "had no intention" of stoning the woman. An empty threat. Whereas you say my view that the threat to stone her was credible and possible from their perspective, and the minds of the woman and spectators too of course. In other words, you'd probably admit that everyone thought the stoning could happen but God.

My original response was

that the Pharisees had no intention of initiating the throwing of stones without Jesus saying that she must be stoned,

according to the Law. If they had that, then yes, there was a real chance they would have gone ahead, because it would both lose Jesus the reputation of being gentle and compassionate, AND they could denounce Jesus to the Romans (for "inciting" the event). Without having Jesus as cover, there is no clear indication in the passage at all that they were going to go through with it.

When you say "mob" I think you are imagining many dozens or even hundreds of people keen on killing her. The reality is that there were many people there to listen to Jesus, and THEN there came a group of scribes and Pharisees, a distinct group, which almost certainly did not number many dozens or hundreds. The original people listening to Jesus were not already worked up against the woman, and John does nothing to recount the Pharisees "working" the crowd to get them riled up. Presumably, because they were listening to Jesus avidly, they were NOT upset with him, nor at that time particularly irritated at being "done out of" the usual (pre-Roman) stonings that none of them could have remembered from their youths.

When I originally used the term "mob", I meant specifically the group of scribes and Pharisees who came with the woman: a set presumably large enough to form a temporary "group" that was subject to "groupthink". Like, for example, "Let's all force Jesus to pick between the Law and compassion" - without necessarily thinking "who is going to be 'the witnesses' who throw the first stones" because they were not thinking it through; an example of groupthink. But not large enough to create a neighborhood-destroying riot: they were scribes and Pharisees, not bar-room brawlers. They were the elites, the educated of society. They might foment a riot (as political players have done through the ages), but the existing crowd was not initially on their side of the "problem" to start with and they did nothing to change that.

The kind of mob you are talking about wasn't there. Not in John's description.

AND I am going to shut down this particular line of discussion (on the mob) as having no further fruit to bear. On the other hand, I am learning ALL SORTS of good stuff from the comments of Gerry and Jonathan. I did not anticipate such detailed investigation into the data, so I really appreciate all this. Both of you, can you lay out the dating for, say, the 10 earliest solid manuscripts in each group (i.e. the ones with the pericope and the ones without)? Or something like that?

Hi Tony,
By View 1 I mean the view that the pericope wasn’t original and the text initially went from 7:52 to 8:12. By View 2 I mean the view that the pericope was original. You admit an apparent discontinuity on View 2, between 8:11 and 12, and note that it may nevertheless admit of explanation (e.g., in terms of two groups of Pharisees present with Jesus and the women, one of which never left). Just to be clear, I have no problem with this kind of discontinuity as such. Rather, Gerry’s internal argument for View 2turned on the idea that that transition is smoother than View 1's transition between 7:52 and 8:12, and that’s what I don’t see.

You: “There are also marks of continuity between the pericope and the following verses: the Pharisees in v. 13 are challenging hum based on who is an appropriate witness to his claim, and both 7:50 and (my reading of) 8:7 are ALSO about the Law regarding witnesses.”

If this is a theme in 7:50 and 8:13, then that would also seem to support the naturalness of View 1's transition. That the theme *also* shows up in the pericope (in 8:7, you say) doesn’t, as far as I see, give us a reason to prefer View 2, but only a potential defeater for an internal case against it. (If one is tempted by the external case, the thematic similarity may explain why the pericope was inserted there, and perhaps even give evidence that the event really happened then - despite not being originally recorded.)

You: “There is also a contextual oddity in having verse 8:12 start with "When Jesus spoke again to the people, after 7:40 to 7:52 being other speaking about Jesus without him being directly present.”

The contextual oddity you see here (I didn’t quote all of what you said) depends on the assumption that in 8:12 Jesus is speaking to the people/crowd. But 8:12 doesn’t say that Jesus spoke to the people; it says he spoke to “them”. If we think in terms of View 1, then the ‘them’ seems to refer to the Pharisees from 7:45-52; at any rate they’re the “closest” candidate antecedent for the pronoun. I’m not claiming Jesus was there with them in 7:45-52; there’s evidently a shift in setting. But if we set aside the pericope arguendo, then in 8:12 he seems to be addressing (at least in part) the Pharisees from 7:52. That’s also supported by 8:13: it’s not the crowd who are said to reply to Jesus, but the Pharisees. (Incidentally, doesn’t View 2 make the antecedent of ‘them’ in 8:12 unclear? Again, Jesus and the woman appear to be alone by the pericope’s end.) And as I suggested last time, I find it interesting that, right after the Pharisees talk about Galilee again in 7:52, Jesus in 8:12 seems (to me) to allude to Isaiah 9:1-2, which brings together Galilee, walking in darkness, and seeing light.

That the theme *also* shows up in the pericope (in 8:7, you say) doesn’t, as far as I see, give us a reason to prefer View 2, but only a potential defeater for an internal case against it.

Fair enough. I can accept that.

But 8:12 doesn’t say that Jesus spoke to the people; it says he spoke to “them”. If we think in terms of View 1, then the ‘them’ seems to refer to the Pharisees from 7:45-52; at any rate they’re the “closest” candidate antecedent for the pronoun. I’m not claiming Jesus was there with them in 7:45-52; there’s evidently a shift in setting. But if we set aside the pericope arguendo, then in 8:12 he seems to be addressing (at least in part) the Pharisees from 7:52. That’s also supported by 8:13: it’s not the crowd who are said to reply to Jesus, but the Pharisees.

I don't feel this is as good an argument. We agree that from 7:37 (Jesus' last words before 8:12, in V1), there is the feeling of a shift in setting. I don't think that 8:12 is addressed specifically to the Pharisees of 7:45-52. I think 8:12 is of a piece with 8:21, and that REPEATS what he said in 7:37, which was addressed to the crowd:

So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.”

Because 8:21 uses "he said to them again", and repeats what Jesus said in 7:37, it makes sense that "them" is the same kind of audience, a crowd. But there is no reason to separate the "them" of 8:21 from the "them" of 8:12. Which makes it odd for 8:12 to be to the Pharisees specifically.

(It could be argued in response that 8:21, in saying "he said to them again", that Jesus was addressing the SAME crowd as 7:37, and this would argue for all of this taking place connected / in conjunction. But this approach has the problem of 7:45-52 being interposed in between, which clearly requires some substantial time. It is better to assume that John is treating "the onlooking crowd" as one party, Jesus as another, and "the Pharisees" as a third party in the entire literary construct, i.e. each group having literary unity even though (as groups) there is no need for them to be made up of the very same people throughout the entire process.)

I don't insist on it, but saying 8:12 is addressed to the Pharisees is not without difficulties of its own.

Again, Jesus and the woman appear to be alone by the pericope’s end.

No, not really. In the pericope, Jesus is with a crowd of onlookers / listeners to his preaching. At the end, THEY are still there. The "alone" is with respect to the inner area where Jesus, the woman, and the accusing scribes and Pharisees were. You have to imagine: the crowd that was there before the scribes came with the woman were there the whole time. The scribes came into the area with the woman, brought the woman right up to Jesus, and thus they kind of "took over" center stage: Jesus, the woman, and the scribes / Pharisees accusing her of adultery and demanding Jesus say what to do. The onlookers remained there, but probably gave way to allow for these intruders to have some space all in the middle. When Jesus "responds" to the scribes, he was not including the crowd already present in his accusations of violating the Law - they did not bring the adulteress. The original crowd never were part of the people demanding of Jesus to judge the woman's case. Nor was there any reason for Jesus to get rid of them via the writing on the ground. The writing was only to get rid of those trying to force Jesus into staking a public claim for or against the stoning - the scribes and Pharisees. So when the accusing Pharisees depart, Jesus and the woman are left "alone" in the middle of the crowd.

Tony,

The age of a manuscript only has weight if it can be demonstrated that the reading it disagrees with is not as old as itself. If the alternate reading is as old, all the manuscript testifies to is that its scribe, knowingly or not, followed one of two (or more for the odd cases where multiple variants exist) existing textual traditions. This is a fact that modern textual critics are slowly, if begrudgingly, beginning to acknowledge. In the nineteenth century, the discovery of Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph), which being fourth century are the oldest complete vellum uncials we have, led, perhaps inevitably, to theory that the oldest manuscripts are the best, which has dominated textual criticism since, beginning to recede somewhat in the 1970s. John William Burgon, the Dean of Chichester Cathedral, argued strenuously against this theory at the time, arguing in a series of articles for Quarterly Review that the quality of manuscripts needs to be weighed against their age, and that in this regard B and Aleph were demonstrably corrupt manuscripts. He was largely ignored by what had become the mainstream school in lower criticism, although they could not comfortably dismiss him, as he was one of the leading experts on Patristic and lectionary evidence of his day.

At any rate, if you start with the principle that if a manuscript is not itself potentially older than an alternative reading that its age can not be set against the alternative reading, then the manuscript witnesses against the Pericope De Adultera whose age carries weight, is reduced to the two papyrus witnesses 𝔓66 and 𝔓75, both of the Bodmer Papyrii, both possibly as old as the late second century. These are the only manuscripts potentially older than either the Didascalia Apostolorum, which makes reference to the story contained in the Pericope, or the Old Latin version of the New Testament which includes it in the majority of manuscripts, both those known to us and those known to St. Jerome.

Another ancient witness to be considered is the lectionaries of the early Greek church. In these, the reading for Pentecost includes a portion of John 7 and John 8, that leaves out the Pericope. The question becomes which explains which. Does the reading in the lectionary reflect the Pericope's absence in the New Testament known to the early Greek Church or does the absence in the lectionary explain the genesis of the alternative reading of the Alexandrian text type? Dean Burgon and Zane C. Hodges both argued for the latter position. It was not uncommon for lectionaries to jump over passages like this was not considered appropriate for the day assigned. This would explain John 7:53's inclusion in the Pericope. It is clearly the ending of the previous episode and not the beginning of the one contained in the rest of the Pericope. The later inclusion of the Pericope in the Greek lectionaries for October 8th nullifies the argument that no Greek Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus in the twelfth century referred to the passage, an argument which is not true at any rate - Didymus the Blind refers to the passage and he is a particularly important witness in this regard since he was from Alexandria, the very region where the manuscripts that exclude the Pericope come from. If the lectionaries' omission of the passage from the Pentecost reading explains the origin of the passage's omission in the Alexandrian manuscripts it could also explain why it was so infrequently commented on in the Greek churches.

Alternatively, those who regard the Alexandrian text type as closer to the autographs, argue that the Pericope was originally an early oral tradition, possibly included in an alternative Gospel that did not make it into the canon, and that the early references to it in the Didascalia and Didymus refer to this tradition, which at some point was migrated into John's Gospel. That some manuscripts include the passage in alternate locations is cited as evidence for this theory. The "the Alexandrian text type is the oldest and best" theory, generally postulates some sort of official redaction of the New Testament text as taking place in the 4th to 5th centuries and producing the Byzantine text type, which is their explanation of the Byzantine type being reflected in the vast majority of manuscripts. The problem with the theory is that while there are no historical accounts of such a redaction having taken place, there are plenty of accounts of scholars tampering with the text - in Alexandria in the second and third centuries! This was one of the reasons - although his proto-Semi-Arianism was a much larger reason - why Origen fell into disrepute during and after the first two ecumenical councils.

I don't know if it's important, but the Diatessaron does not contain the story. I realize that the Diatessaron is not strictly speaking a manuscript of the gospels (it's a kind of harmony), but it's a very ancient attempt to include what is in them and put it all together.

Sorry my delay in responding. I was out of town helping my Dad.

Here is another view on the pericope from Hodges, Farstad, and Dunkin (who I think where mentioned above) :

THE APPARATUS FOR JOHN 7:53–8:11

The materials furnished by von Soden [German biblical scholar from the early 1900's] for the famous story of the woman caught in adultery are much more adequate than those he provides for the rest of the New Testament. Here, in fact, von Soden completely collated all available copies of this pericope, more than nine hundred altogether. Though the precise data of these collations must be painstakingly gathered from his discussions (and not from his apparatus alone), at least it is accessible. From it the editors of the present text have constructed a provisional stemma. This represents their understanding of the transmissional history of this narrative.
It is clear that the textual troubles which overtook the pericope began early. It is omitted by the most ancient witnesses for the Egyptian tradition, namely, P66, P75, א, and B. It was also evidently absent from C and even from A, which in the gospels often sides with the Majority Text. But the joint testimony of these manuscripts, except perhaps for A, simply may point to a very ancient copy from which the passage was missing.
There is no compelling reason to doubt that the story is originally Johannine, despite the prevailing contrary opinion. Among the marks of Johannine style which it exhibits, none is clearer than the phrase in 8:6: τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγον πειράζοντες αὐτόν. This is a pure and simple Johannism, which is evident by comparison with 6:6; 7:39; 11:51; 12:6, 33; and 21:19. Likewise the use of the vocative γύναι (8:10) by Jesus to address a woman is a Johannine characteristic (cf. 2:4; 4:21; 19:26; cf. also 20:13, 15). The phrase μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε (8:11) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except John 5:14, and the historic present of ἄγουσι (8:3) is consonant with John’s frequent use of this idiom.
Nor is the narrative improperly suited to the place where it is found in the overwhelming majority of the nine hundred copies which contain it. On the contrary, a setting at the Feast of Tabernacles (cf. 7:2, 14) is ideal for the story. It was on just such an occasion, when Jerusalem was crowded with pilgrims, that strangers might be thrown together with the resulting sin around which the story centers. An interview with a woman in a court of the temple would likely have been in the Court of the Women. And that is evidently where Jesus was, as the reference to the “treasury” in 8:20 indicates. Moreover, the way in which the woman’s accusers are driven to cover by the moral exposure which Jesus brings upon them furnishes a suggestive introduction to the initial Johannine reference to the Lord as the Light of the World (8:12). The setting of the incident at daybreak is likewise suitable (cf. 8:2) since the rising sun furnishes the natural backdrop for the same title. It is in fact to the sun (not the temple candelabra, as Hort thought) that the title Light of the World refers (cf. 9:4, 5; 11:9). Finally, as the Qumran finds have shown (cf. 1QS iii 6–7), the thought of forgiveness of sin experienced here by the woman is properly linked to the phrase “light of life” (8:12).
In view of the features of Johannine style that have been noted and the narrative’s almost unique suitability to this context, the idea that the passage is not authentically Johannine must finally be dismissed. If it is not an original part of the Fourth Gospel, its writer would have to be viewed as a skilled Johannine imitator, and its placement in this context as the shrewdest piece of interpolation in literary history! Accordingly, the consideration of the narrative’s text that follows assumes its Johannine authenticity.
Von Soden distinguished seven subgroups among the Greek manuscripts containing the pericope. These he designated with the siglum μ (for μοιχαλίς) and by a superscribed numeral. In the apparatus of the text presented herein von Soden’s μ has been changed to M, but his superscribed numbers have been retained. Thus our M = his μ1, M2 = his μ2, and so on. (This M1 is not to be confused with the M1 cited elsewhere in the gospels.) In von Soden’s own stemmatic reconstruction of the textual history of the pericope (cf. Die Schriften, I, Part 1:524), M1 stands nearest the archetype, while M7 is the farthest removed. But von Soden’s preference for M1 is unjustifiably influenced by his high regard for δ5 (or D) and its close allies in this group. As usual, despite its age (fifth century), D is an idiosyncratic text, and M1 as a whole is not very useful in reconstructing the original form of the story

Source:

Zane Clark Hodges, Arthur L. Farstad, and William C. Dunkin, The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, 2nd ed. (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1985), xxiii–xxiv.

However, that is from 1985 and Metzger was from 1994 (though I think his results are still firm: See also Metzger and Ehrman in the book "The Text of the New Testament" p. 319-321, 2005... But I do not always agree with Metzger and other reasoned eclectics e.g. I think a reasonable case can be made for the inclusion of εἰκῇ [eikē] "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22 as the KJV and NKJV include it in the body of the text while other translations usually include it in a footnote).[1]

Not that old is worse (avoiding what Lewis called "chronological snobbery"), but there is the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method that being employed the last 15 or so years that I have not really read up on extensively.

What do you think about this new method, Gerry T Neal?

For a brief introduction to this method see: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/59/59-4/JETS_59-4_675-89_Gurry.pdf

For more information, also see The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with Morphology. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2006, Introduction.

On Matthew 5:22a, see Black, David Alan. "Jesus on Anger: The Text of Matthew 5:22a Revisited." Novum Testamentum 30, no. 1 (1988): 1-8.

Thank you. Interesting discussion.

Here is a link to a book on the Pericope of the Adulteress, but it is expensive. It offers views pro and con.

https://www.amazon.com/Pericope-Adulteress-Contemporary-Research-Testament/dp/0567665798/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522155239&sr=8-1&keywords=pericope+of+the+adulteress

Lydia,

Zane and David Hodges write something on probability that the Majority Text is, generally speaking, would be right. Starts at this link on page 121.

Just mentioning it since I know you have dealt with probability in the past.

http://www.standardbearers.net/uploads/The_Identity_of_the_New_Testament_Text_Dr_Wilbur_N_Pickering.pdf

Maybe this was mentioned already, Eusebius might be recording Papias referring to the pericope (early second century?):

And he [Papias] relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Source:

Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 173.

The age of a manuscript only has weight if it can be demonstrated that the reading it disagrees with is not as old as itself. If the alternate reading is as old, all the manuscript testifies to is that its scribe, knowingly or not, followed one of two (or more for the odd cases where multiple variants exist) existing textual traditions. This is a fact that modern textual critics are slowly, if begrudgingly, beginning to acknowledge. In the nineteenth century, the discovery of Vaticanus (Codex B) and Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph), which being fourth century are the oldest complete vellum uncials we have, led, perhaps inevitably, to theory that the oldest manuscripts are the best, which has dominated textual criticism since, beginning to recede somewhat in the 1970s.

Gerry, I am having trouble with the "only has weight" concept there. I would expect a more nuanced, more involved view that allows many factors to "have weight" even if not conclusive. Take, for example, the following situation. The original text T is (for simplicity) written in year 100. Copy C1 is made from it in year 300, directly from T itself. Separately, copies D2, D3, D4 and D5 are made sequentially every 40 years: D2 is made from T, D3 is made from D2, etc. D5 is made in year 260. The fact that D5 is older than C1 does not ITSELF imply that C5 is more likely to be a better copy than C1. If the above facts were the ONLY facts known about the copies, we would have to assume C1 is more likely to be a better copy than D5, in spite of D5 being older. Nevertheless, it remains possible for D5 to ACTUALLY be the better text (i.e. more faithful), because of the reliability of the copyist(s) involved.

Naturally, X is older than Y is never the ONLY thing we know about a text copy. (And sometimes "X is older than Y" is, itself, not a definitively known fact, but is only a tentative or probable conclusion). And to me it seems more than likely that each of the factors that can be significant cannot be determined to ALWAYS have weight or merit in an a priori precisely prescribed sequence and way. The age may have weight, the quality of the copy may have weight, the location of the copyist may have weight, etc.

I probably should know this already, but I don't so I figured I would ask the people who have studied the issues around competing texts: is there ANY chance that John himself produced more than one variant? That is, suppose he put out the gospel, it has been copied 10 times so far, and then 6 months later when he is looking over another copyist's version to check it, he realizes that he wanted to include something that got left out of the first version. So he inserts (or has the copyist insert) the additional material into THIS copy. Is there any feasibility at all to something like this happening, so that BOTH variants are actually "original" to the text John wrote?

Tony,

That other factors than age have weight is precisely what I have been arguing. If the text type reflected in 𝔓66, 𝔓75, Aleph, B, and the handful of other ancient manuscripts that we call Alexandrian can be demonstrated to have claims to better accuracy other than their age, then demonstrating through other evidence such as the Didascalia and the Old Latin that the alternative reading to the Alexandrian is as old as the Alexandrian witnesses, with the possible exceptions of 𝔓66 and 𝔓75, does not negate these other claims, merely the weight attached to the age of the Alexandrian witnesses, again with the stated possible exceptions, because the witnesses are not themselves older than the alternative reading. Thus, when I say "only has weight" there, it does not mean "only age has weight and not other factors" "but age as an independent factor only has weight if." Modern textual criticism has slowly been backing away from the overemphasis on the age of the Alexandrian manuscripts that has dominated the field since the days of Tischendorf, Tragelles, Westcott and Hort. An alternate case for the superiority of the Alexandrian text type could be made from the fact that it arose in what was the scholarly capital of the ancient world. Counterbalanced against that, however, is that it is also the place where history records tampering with the Scriptural texts to have taken place and in precisely the era that produced these manuscripts. Alexandria has been the source of many different disputes over the Biblical text. It was Alexandrian, albeit pre-Christian Alexandria obviously, where the LXX that became the received Old Testament of the early church was produced, and also in Alexandria, that the school of thought that said the LXX ought to be set aside in favour of the Hebrew text that post-Temple Judaism had decided upon as its canonical Scriptures. This, of course, is where the debate over the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books comes from, and until recently it had the appearance of scholarship being set against orthodox theology (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the Hebrew text antedates any translation such as the LXX, no Hebrew witnesses to the text type found in the LXX versus LXX being the Old Testament that is quoted in the New, and clearly being the Old Testament used by the oldest non-canonical Christian writings - Clement of Rome, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Ignatius, etc.,) although the discovery of Hebrew manuscripts with the LXX text, including some of the deuterocanonical books, in the last century has changed the situation somewhat.

Tony,

I probably should know this already, but I don't so I figured I would ask the people who have studied the issues around competing texts: is there ANY chance that John himself produced more than one variant? That is, suppose he put out the gospel, it has been copied 10 times so far, and then 6 months later when he is looking over another copyist's version to check it, he realizes that he wanted to include something that got left out of the first version. So he inserts (or has the copyist insert) the additional material into THIS copy. Is there any feasibility at all to something like this happening, so that BOTH variants are actually "original" to the text John wrote?

That is not a common hypothesis, but neither is it outside the realm of possibility. Alternately, Zane Hodges suggested that the alternate reading, whether it be the addition of the Pericope or its subtraction, might have occurred during John's lifespan, which did stretch to the end of the first century after all, become known to him, and were in his mind was he penned Rev. 22:18-19.

The life of the author, incidentally, is not considered in textual criticism as often as it should be, perhaps due to an overlap between lower criticism and higher criticism, the latter of which tends to be biased against the authorship traditionally assigned to many Scriptural books, which certainly holds true of the Johannine corpus. Taking, however, the conservative, orthodox, traditional position that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel and three epistles attributed to him, as well as the Apocalypse, consider what we know about his life and ministry. Initially, after the Ascension, the Apostles remained in the Church in Jerusalem, but when they scattered, John is said to have gone to the Greek city of Ephesus in Asia Minor. Polycarp, who is known to have been his personal disciple, became bishop in Smyrna, another Greek city in Asia Minor. When he was exiled to the Greek prison island of Patmos, and wrote the Revelation, the two chapters containing epistles to the churches are all addressed to churches in Asia Minor, Ephesus and Smyrna being the first two of these.

Consider the significance of this to the textual questions. The text type that contains the Pericope De Adultera is called the Byzantine Text Type precisely because the manuscripts in which it is contained belong to the area of the world in which John lived, ministered, and to which he addressed his writings. The majority of manuscripts contain the Byzantine Text Type. Does this testify to some official redaction by the Greek Church of which we have no historical record, or to the Byzantine Text Type's having been the majority text type in earlier manuscripts from this region which have not survived? If the latter, then surely the Byzantine Text Type is logically closer to the autographs than the Alexandrian, since it arose in the region which received the autographs.